The takeaway: Too many science journalists lack skepticism, and balls. — MB
Science reporters and bloggers are guilty of overstating the ability of microbes, nanobots and other technologies to prevent and to lap-up oil spills.
As a result, TV and Web viewers are being lulled into thinking there’s a fix for everything, including BP’s latest pooch-screw.
Here is the underlying problem: Rather than treating scientists and technologists as potential liars — as we are trained to do with pols, for example — we science journos typically treat our subjects with reverence.
To the science writer, I say, the next time any company puts a hard hat on you, and gives you the nickel tour of its facilities, wipe that look of astonishment off your face, and remember to ask, “Will this work?” “Is it safe?” “Where’s the documentation?” and “What if…?”
There’s a stunning slide show, meanwhile, over at Boston.com. Here’s a snip from the text accompanying the images, via PuppetGov:
“While tracking the volume of the continued flow of oil is difficult, an estimated 5,000 barrels of oil possibly much more continues to pour into the gulf every day. While visible damage to shorelines has been minimal to date as the oil has spread slowly, the scene remains, in the words of President Obama, a ‘potentially unprecedented environmental disaster.’”
via The Big Picture: Disaster unfolds slowly in the Gulf of Mexico | PuppetGov.